Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Yukon Court of Appeal dismissed an application for assigned counsel under s. 684(1) of the Criminal Code, finding no arguable ground of appeal.
The application to appoint counsel under s.684 was dismissed because the applicant lacks means but Legal Aid denied funding and the asserted ineffective-assistance grounds do not raise serious issues on their face; the trial record and plea inquiry support the convictions and the court is capable of adjudicating the appeal fairly without appointed counsel, so appointment is not desirable in the interests of justice.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal granted an extension of time to appeal but refused appointed counsel and bail pending appeal, finding no realistic prospect of success.
The application for appointment of counsel under s.684 is dismissed because the applicant did not advance an arguable appeal: Arradi establishes that an accused who elects to testify must answer questions and refusal implicates credibility and may constitute contempt; Hart applies to unresponsive Crown witnesses, not to an accused who elects to testify and refuses to answer, and the asserted sentencing ground was not arguable.
Source excerpt
The application for appointment of counsel under s.684 was dismissed because the applicant, now employed and earning approximately $35,000, provided no sufficient evidence of inability to retain counsel, Legal Aid had denied assistance, the issues on appeal are narrow and not so complex, and the appellant demonstrated the ability to present the appeal such that a fair and just result was likely without appointed counsel.
Source excerpt
The Rowbotham application was dismissed because the applicant failed to prove the second element (indigence/unable to privately retain counsel): evidence established significant unremitted income, discretionary non-essential expenditures and no meaningful efforts to retain counsel or reallocate funds, so state-funded counsel was not warranted despite the complexity of charges.
Source excerpt
The appellant failed to meet his burden to establish he lacks sufficient means under s.684(1). Documentary evidence shows substantial assets (Bitcoins and trust funds) and the appellant provided insufficient evidence of immediate or unavoidable liabilities, tax obligations, or that he exhausted other funding options; therefore assignment of state-funded counsel was not warranted and the motion is dismissed.
Source excerpt
Motion dismissed because appellants failed to exhaust available avenues for obtaining counsel (notably appealing Legal Aid's denial to the Appeal Committee); even if that requirement were met, appointment would not be necessary as the appeal is not unduly complex, the merits are not frivolous but appellants are capable of presenting the appeal themselves, and therefore a fair hearing can be achieved without state-funded counsel.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal for British Columbia granted only a limited s. 684 appointment of counsel, finding most proposed appeal grounds lacked merit but ineffective assistance required further review.
The Court of Appeal of Yukon dismissed Mr. James’s criminal appeal for want of prosecution after years of delay, unpaid transcript costs, and prejudice concerns.
Explore more
